Exposing!! The Corrupt Counterfeit (NIV) Bible, Verses That Have Been Tamped With!!

WithinReason · Mar 24, 2020

Now to a major test (continued):

1 John 5:7-8

1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

1Jn 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

The NIV and NWT follow the same spirit:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+5:7&version=NIV

https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/1-john/5/

Here is the Table of Contents for this post, for fast searching:

The Contextual evidence

The Biblical evidence

The Logical evidence

The Manuscriptural evidence

The Historical evidence

The Meaningful evidence

...

The Contextual evidence:

1 John 5:1 KJB - Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

1 John 5:2 KJB - By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

1 John 5:3 KJB - For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

1 John 5:4 KJB - For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

1 John 5:5 KJB - Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

1 John 5:6 KJB - This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

1 John 5:7 KJB - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

1 John 5:8 KJB - And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

1 John 5:9 KJB - If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

1 John 5:10 KJB - He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

1 John 5:11 KJB - And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

1 John 5:12 KJB - He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

1 John 5:13 KJB - These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

1 John 5:14 KJB - And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:

1 John 5:15 KJB - And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.

1 John 5:16 KJB - If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

1 John 5:17 KJB - All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.

1 John 5:18 KJB - We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

1 John 5:19 KJB - And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

1 John 5:20 KJB - And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

1 John 5:21 KJB - Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.

The Biblical evidence:

God has stated in His word, that He would preserve His words from generation to generation:

Psalms 12:6 KJB - The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Psalms 12:7 KJB - Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Matthew 24:35 KJB - Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Mark 13:31 KJB - Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Luke 21:33 KJB - Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Deuteronomy 8:3 KJB - And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.

Matthew 4:4 KJB - But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Luke 4:4 KJB - And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

These are more powerful than any Manuscriptural evidence.

More to come in a moment.

WithinReason · Mar 24, 2020

Angela53510 said:

Now to a major test (continued):

1 John 5:7-8

The Logical evidence:

Divine inspiration without Divine preservation would be a Divine waste of time. This particular phrase whether in text or margin, quotations for varied persons in history, thus has been around a long time, and even with the Textus Receptus [TR], and moreso, in the King James Bible [the preserved word of God in English] for over 400 years. It is obviously being preserved by that which is greater than the human capability or mind.

The phrase is also unique to John, in that the text does not refer to the specific terms of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, but rather to the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost. The phrase "the word", in reference to the person of the Son, is unique to John's mind, among the gospel and epistle writers.

Just standing back and looking at it objectively, the phrase that is in dispute by critics [see wikipedia, etc], is actually quite large to have been purposefully inserted at some point in early history after the completion of the original text, but it would be far easier to drop it in transmission, transcribing.

Some may argue that the phrase is not in the majority of Koine Greek witnesses, and is therefore not to be retained. This is a logical fallacy. While it is true that it is not in the majority of Greek 'witnesses' [most of which are late mss, etc], that does not preclude its having been originally therein, nor of it's validity as standing in the texts of the other languages of the world, such as Latin, etc.

God never stated that He had to preserve His living word in any singular language, even dead [Koine Greek, Latin, etc] languages at that.

God never stated that He would preserve His word in just the 'early' works and fragments, or in just the 'late' works and fragments which are found in the dusty forgotten places of the world. He may use any combination thereof He chooses.

God never stated that He would preserve His word in the majority of texts. God is able to save by many, few or even just one. For instance, see the battles of Gideon and the 300 [Judges 6 KJB], or Jonathan and his armour bearer:

1 Samuel 14:6 KJB - And Jonathan said to the young man that bare his armour, Come, and let us go over unto the garrison of these uncircumcised: it may be that the LORD will work for us: for there is no restraint to the LORD to save by many or by few.

God is able to re-inspire a text that has been destroyed through various means [in fact, this is how DNA itself, which is a written language, works, when mutations, errors occur within itself. It has a self correcting mechanism.], for instance see the examples of Moses and Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 36:20 KJB - And they went in to the king into the court, but they laid up the roll in the chamber of Elishama the scribe, and told all the words in the ears of the king.

Jeremiah 36:21 KJB - So the king sent Jehudi to fetch the roll: and he took it out of Elishama the scribe's chamber. And Jehudi read it in the ears of the king, and in the ears of all the princes which stood beside the king.

Jeremiah 36:22 KJB -Now the king sat in the winterhouse in the ninth month: and [there was a fire] on the hearth burning before him.

Jeremiah 36:23 KJB -And it came to pass, [that] when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast [it] into the fire that [was] on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that [was] on the hearth.

Jeremiah 36:24 KJB - Yet they were not afraid, nor rent their garments, [neither] the king, nor any of his servants that heard all these words.

Jeremiah 36:25 KJB -Nevertheless Elnathan and Delaiah and Gemariah had made intercession to the king that he would not burn the roll: but he would not hear them.

Jeremiah 36:26 KJB -Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying,

Jeremiah 36:27 KJB -Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned.

Jeremiah 36:28 KJB - And thou shalt say to Jehoiakim king of Judah, Thus saith the LORD; Thou hast burned this roll, saying, Why hast thou written therein, saying, The king of Babylon shall certainly come and destroy this land, and shall cause to cease from thence man and beast?

Notice Matthew 1:11 KJB:

Matthew 1:11 KJB - And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

Notice who is suddenly 'missing'?

Jehoiakim... (for it was Jehoiakim that begat Jechonias, and Josias the father of Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:34; Jeremiah 1:3, 22:18, 25:1, 26:1, 27:1, 35:1, 36:1,9, 45:1, 46:2) and was Jechonias' grandfather (1 Chronicles 3:16; Jeremiah 22:24, 24:1, 27:20, 28:4, 37:1; "Coniah" = "Jeconiah/s")), but why?

It was for what he did to the word of God; which was cutting it up into pieces and having it burned.

On another note, some 'skeptics' , or even so-called Bible scholars [like the 'lawyers, scribes, etc of Jesus' day], try to point out in scripture, like this location, and say, “See, your Bible cannot be trusted, as it has gaps in the Genealogies, and therefore who knows how many persons are missing, etc, etc.” Yet, the only reason we know that there are so-called “gaps” in certain places like Matthew or elsewhere in the first place, is because those so-called “gaps” are filled in elsewhere, which means, there are no actual gaps in scripture [KJB].

Also, this particular example is good, because of what else it shows. Namely, that even though Jeremiah wrote [through Baruch; Jeremiah 36:1-4 KJB] the original note/letter and sent it to the King, from God, the King cut up and burned the original copy. Therefore, that “original manuscript” is forever lost [except God bring it back through miracle]. This goes to show that those who claim to only believe the “original manuscripts” do not know what they are talking about.

The “original manuscripts” are long gone, destroyed, burned, faded, erased, or re-used [called a 'palimpsest', scrape over a lambskin, etc and rewrite on top], buried at sea and eaten, and so on.

God does not care so much about the “originals” as He does about simply “preserving” His word [see Psalms 12:6-7 KJB], generally through memory, copying, etc.

Well, since the King cut up and burned [Jeremiah 36:23 KJB] the “original” manuscript copy of the letter by Jeremiah/Baurch, how then do we have a copy of it in scripture to read [Jeremiah 36 KJB]? Did you take notice all of the times that “scribes” are near at hand, making copies of what is said, or written? What was more important, the “original” or preserving what was said by God?

Obviously preserving the words, not the “original” manuscript.

Yet, this is not all, for we even see that God had Jeremiah/Baruch, write an “original” manuscript number 2, to repeat what was in the first “original” with even more words, see Jeremiah 36:28,32 KJB. Therefore, we see, that if a piece of God's word be maliciously destroyed, God, through one means or another, preserves it. In this instance, Jeremiah and Baruch were to write such again, and add more to it.

Thus we now have “original” manuscript number 2.

Yet this “original” manuscript is taken and tied to a stone and cast into the Euphrates river [Jeremiah 51:63 KJB], thus eliminating “original” manuscript number 2, by decree of God, through an angel.

How then do we have those words in Jeremiah since the “original” manuscript 2 was purposefully destroyed at God's own command? Well, someone obviously made a copy of those words, either Jeremiah/Baruch, or a “scribe” in either the Temple or King's court, etc and thus we then have “original” manuscript number 3.

Yet, to be sure, “original” manuscript number 3 is more than likely, as the other two, long since been disintegrated. It is not the “originals” that are important, but rather it is the preservation [by God] of those words which were given by God [Acts 1:16; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21 KJB].

Consider also the original Tables of Stone written upon by the finger of God, were broken by Moses [Exodus 32:19; Deuteronomy 9:17 KJB].

Was the medium of the material important as much as the words, or were the words to be preserved instead on a new [though similar] medium [Exodus 34:1; Deuteronomy 10:2 KJB]?

God's words are still available today in the preserved word of God, in English, the King James Bible, and may be found in Exodus 20:1-17 KJB. No old fragment of an "original" is needed. God's word is "quick" ['living'; Hebrews 4:12 KJB], not dead.

hornetguy · Mar 24, 2020

John146 said:

You and I have had this same discussion... what, 2 years ago? God's word IS reliable... in many different versions.

hornetguy · Mar 24, 2020

WithinReason said:

If all you are going to do is cut and paste, then go "SEE! THERE it is!", I don't see much discussing. All I see is you trying to impress with your library of pro King James rhetoric. You cannot give ONE example of a person who has lost their faith, or never found it in the first place because a newer translation was worded differently than the archaic KJV.

Again, you simply want to argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.... silly, pointless, and counter to what Jesus wanted us to do. Gloat in your "rightness"....

WithinReason · Mar 24, 2020

Angela53510 said:

Now to a major test (continued):

1 John 5:7-8

The Manuscriptural evidence:

[1] Manuscripts [MSS]

Cursives [Greek lowercase]:

[01] #61 [aka Codex Montfortianus] - 16th Cent.
[02] #88 [aka Codex Regis [margin, 16th Cent.]] - 12th Cent.
[03] #177 [BSB Codex graeci 211 [margin, 15th Cent.] - 11th Cent.
[04] #221 [margin, 15th/16th Cent.] - 10th Cent.
[05] #429 [aka Codex Wolfenbuttel, margin, 16th Cent.] - 14th Cent.
[06] #629 [aka Codex Ottobonianus] - 14th Cent.
[07] #535 - 11th Cent.
[08] #636 [margin] - 15th Cent.
[09] #918 - 16th Cent.
[10] #2318 - 18th Cent.
[11] #2473 - 18th Cent.

Latin:

[01] c [aka Codex Colbertinus, aka 6, 12th/13th Cent. [1200]]
[02] dem [aka Codex Demidovianus, aka 59, 13th Cent. [1250]]
[03] div [aka Codex Divionensis, aka –, 13th Cent. [1250]]
[04] l [aka Codex Legionensis, aka 67, 7th Cent. [750]]
[05] m [aka Codex Speculum, aka –, 4th-9th Cent.]
[06] p [aka Codex Perpinianensis, aka 54, 12th/13th Cent. [1150]]
[07] q [aka Codex Frisingensis, aka 64, 7h Cent. [650]]
[08] r [aka Codex Frisingensis, aka 64, 5th/6th Cent.]
[09] Vulgate [Clementine edition]
[10] La Cava Bible [aka Codex Cavensis [9th Cent.]]
[11] Codex Ulmensis [9th Cent.]
[12] C [aka Codex Complutensis, 10th Cent.]
[13] T [aka Codex Toletanus, 10th Cent.]
[14] Θ [Codex Theodulphianus, 10th Cent.]
[15] S 907 [aka Codex Sangallensis 907, 8th Cent.]
[16] S 63 [aka Codex Sangallensis 63, 9th Cent.]

“testimonium dicunt [or dant] in terra, spiritus [or: spiritus et] aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt in Christo Iesu. [8] et tres sunt, qui testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater verbum et spirtus.”

[2] “Church Fathers” [so-called]

[01] Tertullian [circa. AD 220]

[02] Cyprian of Carthage [circa. AD 258], Treatises (I 5:423): “... and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.' ...”

[03] Priscillan [circa. AD 358]

[04] The Speculum [5th Cent.], Pseudo-Augustine

[05] Creed “Esposito Fidei [5th/6th Cent.]

[06] Old Latin [5th/6th Cent.]

[07] Confession of Faith of Eugenius, Bishop of Carthage [circa. AD 484]

[08] Cassiodoris of Italy [circa. AD 480-570] in Complexiones in Ionis Epist. ad Parthos.

Thus: "... Clementine edition of Vulgate translation; Pseudo-Augustine's Speculum Peccatoris (V), also (these three with some variation) Cyprian, Ps-Cyprian, & Priscillian (died 385) Liber Apologeticus. And Contra-Varimadum, and Ps-Vigilius, Fulgentius of Ruspe (died 527) Responsio contra Arianos, Cassiodorus Complexiones in Ioannis Epist. ad Parthos. ..." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum#Manuscripts

“… “at least four Old Latin manuscripts, over eight ‘Church Fathers’ (including Cyprian who died A.D. 258), four Syriac editions, Slavic and Armenian manuscripts, over 600 distinct editions of the Textus Receptus from 1522 to 1881, 18 pre-Lutheran Bibles, and thousands of Vulgate manuscripts. Among Greek manuscripts which do omit this verse, 97% are late manuscripts, dated from the 10th century and later.”1 …” - Ridiculous KJV Bible Corrections - 1 John 5:7 Scams

“… Some Syriac Peshitto manuscripts, The Syriac Edition at Hamburg, Bishop Uscan’s Armenian Bible, the Armenian Edition of John Zohrob, the first printed Georgian Bible.

...

The evidence is overwhelming for the authenticity of 1 John 5:7-8. Keep in mind that it was Origen who was the father of the false manuscripts who removed this verse as he did verses like Acts 8:37 and Luke 24:40. The Alexandrian school was no friend of the true manuscripts which were taken from Antioch and mutilated according to Gnostic beliefs.” - http://www.scionofzion.com/1 john 5 78.htm

[3] Lectionaries

[01] “some minority variant readings in lectionaries.”

The varied Manuscripts [MSS] codices, papyri, palimpsests, etc are not the foundation of proof [for all things require faith in God's word as foundation], but merely further evidence for confirmation.

WithinReason · Mar 24, 2020

hornetguy said:

See, the evidence is before you. You may take it or leave it as you will, as you did not desire to participate as earlier indicated. Thank you for your time and your opinion. I will continue to present the evidence as I have been.

WithinReason · Mar 24, 2020

Angela53510 said:

Now to a major test (continued):

1 John 5:7-8

The Historical evidence:

For quick details see - https://www.scionofzion.com/why_1_john_5_7_8.htm

For quick details see - https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/1john57.htm

The following is cited in detail as it represent the short historical accounting - https://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_1jo5_7.html

"... 1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma) - "These Three Are One"

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." —1Jo 5:7

The passage is called the Johannine Comma and is not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts. [1] However, the verse is a wonderful testimony to the Heavenly Trinity and should be maintained in our English versions, not only because of its doctrinal significance but because of the external and internal evidence that testify to its authenticity.

The External Support: Although not found in most Greek manuscripts, the Johannine Comma is found in several. It is contained in 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelveth century), 429 (fourteenth century), and 636 (fifteenth century). There are about five hundred existing manuscripts of 1 John chapter five that do not contain the Comma. [2] It is clear that the reading found in the Textus Receptus is the minority reading with later textual support from the Greek witnesses. Nevertheless, being a minority reading does not eliminate it as genuine. The Critical Text considers the reading Iesou (of Jesus) to be the genuine reading instead of Iesou Christou (of Jesus Christ) in 1 John 1:7. Yet Iesou is the minority reading with only twenty-four manuscripts supporting it, while four hundred seventy-seven manuscripts support the reading Iesou Christou found in the Textus Receptus. Likewise, in 1 John 2:20 the minority reading pantes (all) has only twelve manuscripts supporting it, while the majority reading is panta (all things) has four hundred ninety-one manuscripts. Still, the Critical Text favors the minority reading over the majority in that passage. This is common place throughout the First Epistle of John, and the New Testament as a whole. Therefore, simply because a reading is in the minority does not eliminate it as being considered original.

While the Greek textual evidence is weak, the Latin textual evidence for the Comma is extremely strong. It is in the vast majority of the Old Latin manuscripts, which outnumber the Greek manuscripts. Although some doubt if the Comma was a part of Jerome's original Vulgate, the evidence suggests that it was. Jerome states:

In that place particularly where we read about the unity of the Trinity which is placed in the First Epistle of John, in which also the names of three, i.e. of water, of blood, and of spirit, do they place in their edition and omitting the testimony of the Father; and the Word, and the Spirit in which the catholic faith is especially confirmed and the single substance of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is confirmed. [3]

Other church fathers are also known to have quoted the Comma. Although some have questioned if Cyprian (258 AD) knew of the Comma, his citation certainly suggests that he did. He writes: "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one'." [4] Also, there is no doubt that Priscillian (385 AD) cites the Comma:

As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus." [5]

Likewise, the anti-Arian work compiled by an unknown writer, the Varimadum (380 AD) states: "And John the Evangelist says, . . . 'And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one'." [6] Additionally, Cassian (435 AD), Cassiodorus (580 AD), and a host of other African and Western bishops in subsequent centuries have cited the Comma. [7] Therefore, we see that the reading has massive and ancient textual support apart from the Greek witnesses.

Internal Evidence: The structure of the Comma is certainly Johannine in style. John is noted for referring to Christ as "the Word." If 1 John 5:7 were an interpretation of verse eight, as some have suggested, than we would expect the verse to use "Son" instead of "Word." However, the verse uses the Greek word logos, which is uniquely in the style of John and provides evidence of its genuineness. Also, we find John drawing parallels between the Trinity and what they testify (1 John 4:13-14). Therefore, it comes as no surprise to find a parallel of witnesses containing groups of three, one heavenly and one earthly.

The strongest evidence, however, is found in the Greek text itself. Looking at 1 John 5:8, there are three nouns which, in Greek, stand in the neuter (Spirit, water, and blood). However, they are followed by a participle that is masculine. The Greek phrase here is oi marturountes (who bare witness). Those who know the Greek language understand this to be poor grammar if left to stand on its own. Even more noticeably, verse six has the same participle but stands in the neuter (Gk.: to marturoun). Why are three neuter nouns supported with a masculine participle? The answer is found if we include verse seven. There we have two masculine nouns (Father and Son) followed by a neuter noun (Spirit). The verse also has the Greek masculine participle oi marturountes. With this clause introducing verse eight, it is very proper for the participle in verse eight to be masculine, because of the masculine nouns in verse seven. But if verse seven were not there it would become improper Greek grammar.

Even though Gregory of Nazianzus (390 AD) does not testify to the authenticity of the Comma, he makes mention of the flawed grammar resulting from its absence. In his Theological Orientations he writes referring to John:

. . . (he has not been consistent) in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourselves disclaim in the case of Deity? [8]

It is clear that Gregory recognized the inconsistency with Greek grammar if all we have are verses six and eight without verse seven. Other scholars have recognized the same thing. This was the argument of Robert Dabney of Union Theological Seminary in his book, The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek (1891). Bishop Middleton in his book, Doctrine of the Greek Article, argues that verse seven must be a part of the text according to the Greek structure of the passage. Even in the famous commentary by Matthew Henry, there is a note stating that we must have verse seven if we are to have proper Greek in verse eight. [9]

While the external evidence makes the originality of the Comma possible, the internal evidence makes it very probable. When we consider the providential hand of God and His use of the Traditional Text in the Reformation it is clear that the Comma is authentic.

WithinReason · Mar 24, 2020

Now to a major test (continued):

1 John 5:7-8

The Historical evidence:

For quick details see - https://www.scionofzion.com/why_1_john_5_7_8.htm

For quick details see - https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/1john57.htm

The following is cited in detail as it represent the short historical accounting - https://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_1jo5_7.html

[1] The first and second editions of Erasmus' Greek text did not contain the Comma. It is generally reported that Erasmus promised to include the Comma in his third edition if a single manuscript containing the Comma could be produced. A Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy) forged a Greek text containing it by translating the Comma from the Latin into Greek. Erasmus was then presented with this falsified manuscript and, being faithful to his word, reluctantly included the Comma in the 1522 edition. However, as has now been admitted by Dr. Bruce Metzger, this story is apocryphal (The Text Of The New Testament, 291). Metzger notes that H. J. de Jonge, a respected specialist on Erasmus, has established that there is no evidence of such events occurring. Therefore, opponents of the Comma in light of the historical facts should no longer affirm this report.

[2] Kurt Aland, in connection with Annette Benduhn-Mertz and Gerd Mink, Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments: I. Die Katholischen Briefe Band 1: Das Material (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1987), 163-166.

[3] Prologue To The Canonical Epistles. The Latin text reads, "si ab interpretibus fideliter in latinum eloquium verterentur nec ambiguitatem legentibus facerent nec trinitatis unitate in prima joannis epistola positum legimus, in qua etiam, trium tantummodo vocabula hoc est aquae, sanguinis et spiritus in ipsa sua editione ponentes et patris verbique ac aspiritus testimoninum omittentes, in quo maxime et fides catholica roboratur, et patris et filii et spirtus sancti una divinitatis substantia comprobatur."

[4] Treatises 1 5:423.

[5] Liber Apologeticus.

[6] Varimadum 90:20-21.

[7] Some other sources include the Speculum (or m of 450 AD), Victor of Vita (489 AD), Victor Vitensis (485 AD), Codex Freisingensis (of 500 AD), Fulgentius (533 AD), Isidore of Seville (636 AD), Codex Pal Legionensis (650 AD), and Jaqub of Edessa (700 AD). Interestingly, it is also found in the edition of the Apostle's Creed used by the Waldenses and Albigensians of the twelfth century.

[8] Fifth Orientation the Holy Spirit.

[9] Actually the 1 John commentary is the work of "Mr. John Reynolds of Shrewsbury," one of the ministers who completed Matthew Henry's commentary, which was left incomplete [only up to the end of Acts] at Henry's death in 1714. ..."

jacob_g · Mar 24, 2020

I "know" Paul spoke and wrote in King Jimmy instead of the coinay Greek of his day, when exactly did King Jimmy become the only translation?

WithinReason · Mar 24, 2020

jacob_g said:

Strawman.

jacob_g · Mar 24, 2020

WithinReason said:

What does that mean? Your response was" old" I guess I am not able too keep up with you ... What does strawman mean?

WithinReason · Mar 24, 2020

Angela53510 said:

1 John 5:7-8 (continued)

The following is cited in detail as it represents the great detailed historical accounting - https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/a-defense-of-1-john.php

"... Excerpted from the book THE BIBLE VERSION QUESTION-ANSWER DATABASE available at www.wayoflife.org. See end of report for details.

________

1 John 5:7-8 in the King James Bible reads: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

The capitalized words, called the Johannine Comma, are omitted in the modern Greek texts and English versions. (The term “comma” described “a group of words isolated as a single group.”)

It would seem, in fact, that modern textual critics despise the traditional Trinitarian statement in 1 John 5:7-8 more than any other passage in the Received Text.

Bruce Metzger called it “spurious” (The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, p. 101). Kurt and Barbara Aland had no doubt that it is inauthentic, speaking of “the impossibility of its being at all related to the original form of the text of 1 John” (The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions, p. 311). This is typical of how 1 John 5:7 is treated by textual critics.

Beginning with the publication of the English Revised Version of 1881, the Johannine Comma has been omitted from practically every modern English translation, including the ASV, RSV, NASV, NIV, TEV, Living Bible, the Message, New Living Translation, the CEV, and the Holman Christian Standard Bible.

ANSWER:

This is one of the most important verses in the Bible on the doctrine of the Trinity and one of the most important witnesses to the full Deity of Jesus Christ; and for the following reasons I am convinced that 1 John 5:7 as it stands in the Greek Received Text and the King James Bible is divinely inspired Scripture.

We must not be overawed by textual scholars. They do not possess secret knowledge nor do they have secret wisdom. I do not want to speak disrespectfully, for I do not despise learning (though I do despise the thing that David Otis Fuller called “scholarolatry”). but it is true nonetheless that they are only men and not gods. The very fact that they almost never mention the fundamental issue of faith (Hebrews 11:6) or the promise of divine preservation or the Spirit of God in the context of these matters is most fearfully telling.

Consider, first, THE THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. “The strength of forgery or interpolation is similarity and not uniqueness. The Trinitarian formula, ‘Father, Word, and Holy Spirit’ is unique not only for John but for all NT writers. The usual formula, ‘Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’ would have been assuredly used by a forger. [Incidentally, this argument is an antidote for rationalists who repudiate the authenticity of the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter. Peter uses a unique spelling for his name (Sumeon), which is also the first word of the Epistle, to demonstrate his mark of authorship. What forger would pass three dollar bills? Only the authority, the government, would attempt such a unique action.]” (Dr. Thomas Strouse, A Critique of D.A. Carson’s The King James Version Debate, 1980).

Another consideration is THE GRAMMATICAL ARGUMENT. “The omission of the Johannine Comma leaves much to be desired grammatically. The words ‘Spirit,’ ‘water’ and ‘blood’ are all neuters, yet they are treated as masculine in verse 8. This is strange if the Johannine Comma is omitted, but it can be accounted for if it is retained; the masculine nouns ‘Father’ and ‘word’ in verse 7 regulate the gender in the succeeding verse due to the power of attraction principle. The argument that the ‘Spirit’ is personalized and therefore masculine is offset by verse 6 which is definitely referring to the personal Holy Spirit yet using the neuter gender. [I. H. Marshall is a current voice for this argument: ‘It is striking that although Spirit, water, and blood are all neuter nouns in Greek, they are introduced by a clause expressed in the masculine plural ... Here in 1 John he clearly regards the Spirit as personal, and this leads to the personification of the water and the blood’ The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1978), p. 237n.] Moreover, the words ‘that one’ (to hen) in verse 8 have no antecedent if verse 7 is omitted, [Marshall calls this construction ‘unparalleled,’ p. 237] whereas if verse 7 is retained, then the antecedent is ‘these three are one’ (to hen)” (Strouse, A Critique of D.A. Carson’s The King James Version Debate).

The grammatical argument has been treated lightly by modern textual critics, but its importance was understood by GREGORY NAZIANZUS (Oration XXXII: Fifth Theological Oration: “On the Holy Spirit,” A.D. 390; see Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8), FREDERIC NOLAN (An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, 1815), ROBERT DABNEY (“The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek,” 1891), THOMAS MIDDLETON (The Doctrine of the Greek article: applied to the criticism and illustration of the New Testament, 1833), MATTHEW HENRY (Commentary on the Whole Bible, 1706), EDWARD F. HILLS (The King James Bible Defended: a Space-age Defense of the Historic Christian Faith, 1956), LOUIS GAUSSEN (The Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, 1934), to name a few. I take my stand with these men. ..."

WithinReason · Mar 24, 2020

Angela53510 said:

1 John 5:7-8 (continued)

"... Consider, too, THE ARGUMENT FROM THE PURPOSE OF JOHN’S WRITINGS AND OF THE NATURE OF THOSE TIMES.

“Regarding the issue at hand, such a distinct literary/historical coherence fully supports the inclusion of the Johannine Comma. The resounding theme of the Gospel of John is the divinity of Jesus Christ. Such is summed up in John 10:30, when Jesus says, ‘I and my Father are one.’ This same theme is prevalent in the Epistle, being concisely and clearly stated in 5:7-8.The Comma truly bears coherence with the message of John’s Gospel in this sense. It serves as an occasion to introduce the doctrine of the Trinity as the original readers prepared to study the attached Gospel. Although Christ’s divinity is inferred throughout the epistle, one is not confronted with such succinct declaration as is conveyed in the Comma. If this passage is omitted, it seems that the theme of John's Gospel would lack a proper introduction.

“It is interesting to note that one of the earliest allusions to the Johannine Comma in church history is promulgated in connection to the thematic statement made by the Lord in John 10:30. [The fact that this allusion was made less than two centuries after the completion of the New Testament serves as convincing external evidence for the authenticity of the Johannine Comma.] Cyprian writes around A.D. 250, ‘The Lord says “I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.”’ [The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Church Fathers Down to A.D. 325 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926), 5:423.] The theological teaching of the Comma most definitely bears coherence with the overriding theme of John’s Gospel. There is no reason to believe that the verse is not genuine in this sense, for it serves as a proper prelude to the theme of the Gospel which, historically speaking, most likely accompanied the Epistle as it was sent out to its original audience.

“The heresy of Gnosticism is also of notable importance with regard to the historical context surrounding the Johannine Comma. This ‘unethical intellectualism’ had begun to make inroads among churches in John’s day; its influence would continue to grow up until the second century when it gave pure Christianity a giant struggle. [Robertson, 6:200] Generally speaking, Gnosticism can be described as a variety of syncretic religious movements in the early period of church history that sought to answer the question, ‘What must I do to be saved?’ The Gnostic answer was that a person must possess a secret knowledge. Proponents of Gnosticism claimed to possess a superior knowledge and so were called Gnostics.] One of the major tenets of Gnosticism was the essential evil of matter; the physical body, in other words, was viewed as evil. According to this line of thought, Jesus Christ could not have been fully God and fully man, for this would have required him to posses an evil physical body.

“The seeds of the Gnostic heresy seem to be before John’s mind in his first epistle; nine times he gives tests for knowing truth in conjunction with the verb ginosko (to know). [1 John 2:3, 5; 3:16, 19, 24; 4:2, 6, 13; 5:2] This being said, the Johannine Comma would have constituted an integral component of the case the Apostle made against the false teachings of the Gnostics, especially with regard to the nature of Christ. Robertson notes that John's Gospel was written to prove the deity of Christ, assuming his humanity, while 1 John was written to prove the humanity of Christ, assuming his deity. [Robertson, 6:201] He goes on to say, ‘Certainly both ideas appear in both books.’ If these notions are true, then the Comma is important to John’s polemic. Jesus Christ, the human Son of God, is the eternal, living Word (cf. John 1:1). The Word, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, bears witness to ‘he that came by water and blood,’ even Jesus Christ (1 John 5:6). This assertion would have flown right into the face of Gnosticism” (Jesse M. Boyd, “And These Three Are One: A Case for the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7-8,” 1999, http://www.ovrlnd.com/Bible/casefor1john57.html). ..."

WithinReason · Mar 24, 2020

Angela53510 said:

1 John 5:7-8 (continued)

"... Another consideration is THE ARGUMENT FROM THE GREEK MANUSCRIPT RECORD. D.A. Carson, probably following Bruce Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (3rd edition corrected, 1975), claims there are only four MSS containing the Johannine Comma. In fact, the UBS 4th Greek N.T. lists 8 manuscripts that contain the comma, four in the text (61, 629, 2318, 918) and four in the margin (88, 221, 429, 636).

When considering the Greek manuscript evidence for or against the Johannine Comma, it is important to understand that there are only five manuscripts dating from the 2nd to the 7th century that even contain the fifth chapter of 1 John (Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8, Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995). None of the papyrus contains this portion of Scripture.

Further, it is important to understand that some Greek manuscripts cited by editors in the 16th and 17th centuries are no longer extant. The Complutensian Bible, produced by several Catholic scholars, was based on Greek manuscripts obtained from the Vatican library and elsewhere. They included 1 John 5:7 on the authority of “ancient codices” that were in their possession. Further, Robert Stephens, who produced several editions of the Greek Received Text, obtained ancient Greek manuscripts from the Royal Library at Paris. He refused to allow even one letter that was not supported by what he considered to be the best Greek manuscripts. When he compared these manuscripts to the Complutensian, he found that they agreed. In the margin of the 3rd edition of his Greek N.T. he said seven of the 15 or 16 Greek manuscripts in his possession contained the Johannine Comma. Theodore Beza borrowed these manuscripts from Robert Stephens’ son Henry and further testified that 1 John 5:7 is found in “some ancient manuscripts of Stephens.”

In the 16th and 17th centuries, both the Catholic and the Reformation editors were convinced of the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 based on the Greek manuscript evidence that was before them.

It is probable that some of this evidence has been lost. Consider the following important statements:

“Erasmus, in his Notes on the place, owns that the Spanish Edition took it from a Vatican MS, and Father Amelote, in his Notes on his own Version of the Greek Testament, affirms, that he had seen this verse in the most ancient copy of the Vatican Library. The learned Author of the Enquiry into the Authority of the Complutensian Edition of the New Testament [Richard Smalbroke], in a letter to Dr. Bentley, from these and many other arguments, proves it to be little less than certain, that the controverted passage 1 Joh. v.7 was found in the ancient Vatican MS, so particularly recommended by Pope Leo to the Editors at Complutum” (Leonard Twells, A Critical Examination of the Late New Text and Version of the New Testament, 1731, II, p. 128).

“Can we peruse the account which is given of the labours of Laurentius Valla [he collated the Latin against the Greek in the 15th century], of the Complutensian Editors of the Old and New Testaments, of Robert Stephens, the Parisain printer, and of Theodore Beza, without believing, that they found this passage in several valuable Greek manuscripts? All those learned and honourable men could not surely have combined to assert, in the face of the Christian world, that they had examined and collated manuscripts which contained this verse. Where would be our candour and charity, if we should suppose them capable of such an intentional and deliberate falsification of the Scriptures, and of doing this in concert? Would not this be to rob them of their honest and well-earned reputation, for learning and worth, for probity and honour, and to stigmatize them as cheats and impostors? It is supposed, that those Greek manuscripts which were used by the first editors of the New Testament, have been lost by being neglected, or destroyed after they had been used for this purpose. The manuscripts which were used by the Complutensian Editors, under the direction of Cardinal Ximenes, it is said, were never returned to the library of the Vatican, but are either lost, or lie concealed in some of the libraries in Spain. The manuscripts which were borrowed by Robert Stephens, from the Royal Library at Paris, have never found their way back thither, or at least, they are not now, it is said, in that Library. ... Though, however, it could be proved, that there did not exist at this hour, a single Greek manuscript which exhibited the verse in question, yet still the testimonies of their former existence, which have been produced, should overbalance, it is conceived, in the view of every unprejudiced mind, any unfavourable presumption arising from this circumstance” (Robert Jack, Remarks on the Authenticity of 1 John v. 7). ..."

WithinReason · Mar 24, 2020

Angela53510 said:

1 John 5:7-8 (continued)

"... Consider, too, THE ARGUMENT FROM THE GREEK LECTIONARIES AND PRINTED BIBLES. It is a fascinating fact that though the majority of extant Greek manuscripts do not contain 1 John 5:7, many of the lectionaries of the Greek Orthodox Church do contain it, as do the printed Greek Bibles. The lectionaries are Scripture passages organized to be read in the churches.

The printed lectionaries in the Greek Orthodox Church since the 16th century have often included 1 John 5:7. This is an important fact, because it is not reasonable to believe that the Greek Orthodox Church would “correct” its own text from Latin.

1 John 5:7 was in the Apostolos or Collection of Lessons (5th century), “read in the Greek Church, out of the Apostolical Epistles, and printed at Venice, An. 1602. Velut ab Antiquis seculis recepta Lectio, says Selden de Synedriis, l.2, c.4. Art. 4. This Lectionary is as old as the fifth century. Vide Millii Prol. 1054, and Mr. Martin’s Dissertation, Part I. c. 13” (Leonard Twells, A Critical Examination of the Late New Text and Version of the New Testament, 1731, II, p. 129).

1 John 5:7 was in the lectionary Ordo Romanus (A.D. 730) (Twells, II, p. 133). The Trinitarian text was to be read between Easter and Whitsuntide, “as we learn from Durandus, a writer of the fourteenth century, in his Rationale of Divine Offices.”

The Greek Orthodox Church’s printed New Testaments, both ancient and modern, contain 1 John 5:7. Again, it not possible to believe that they would include this on the basis of anything other than evidence from Greek. Being keepers of the Greek language, they would despise the Latin. ..."

WithinReason · Mar 24, 2020

Angela53510 said:

1 John 5:7-8 (continued)

"... Another consideration is THE ARGUMENT FROM THE LATIN MANUSCRIPT RECORD. The majority of Latin New Testament manuscripts from the past 900 years contain 1 John 5:7. Further, some of the most ancient also contain it. “It is not true, that the most ancient Latin MSS. Of the New Testament want the celebrated passage of 1 John 5:7. For the Bible of Charlemagne revised and corrected by the learned Alcuin, has that text by the confession of our adversaries, and they have not been able to produce an older MS. Where it is missing. The only pretended one of this sort, is Mabillon’s Lectionary, which after all is not strictly a MS. of the New Testament, nor written in Latin but in a mixed language, called Teutonick-French, or Gallo-Teutonick” (Twells, II, p. 153). ..."

WithinReason · Mar 24, 2020

Angela53510 said:

1 John 5:7-8 (continued)

"... THE ARGUMENT FROM THE WRITINGS OF ANCIENT CHURCH LEADERS. Following are some quotations that refer to the Johannine Comma from church writings dating to the first eight centuries of the church age:

Tertullian (c. 200 A.D.) -- “The connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Comforter, makes an unity of these three, one with another, which three are one,--not one person; in like manner as it is said, I and my Father are one, to denote the unity of substance, and not the singularity of number” (Against Praxeas, II, Ante-Nicene Fathers). “We find, therefore, that about A.D. 200, not much more than an hundred years after this Epistle was written, Tertullian refers to the verse in question, to prove that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are one in essence; a satisfactory evidence, that this doctrine, though asserted by some in our time, to be a dangerous novelty, was really the acknowledged faith of Christians in those early times” (Robert Jack, Remarks on the Authenticity of 1 John v. 7).

Cyprian of Carthage (c. 250 A.D.) -- “The Lord says ‘I and the Father are one’ and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one’” (De Unitate Ecclesiae, [On The Unity of the Church], The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Church Fathers Down to A.D.325). Here Cyprian quotes from John 10:30 and 1 John 5:7. Nowhere else in Scripture do we find the words “and these three are one.” “It is true that Facundus, a 6th-century African bishop, interpreted Cyprian as referring to the following verse, but, as Scrivener (1883) remarks, it is ‘surely safer and more candid’ to admit that Cyprian read the Johannine comma in his New Testament manuscript ‘than to resort to the explanation of Facundus’” (Edward Hills, p. 210). Leonard Twells adds, “This noble testimony invincibly proves, that the passage now under debate, was in approved copies of the third century” (A Critical Examination of the Late New Text and Version of the New Testament, 1731, II, p. 134).

Athanasius (c. 350 A.D.) quotes 1 John 5:7 at least three times in his works (R.E. Brown, The Anchor Bible, Epistles of John, 1982, p. 782). “Among the works of Athanasius which are generally allowed to be genuine, is a Synopsis of this Epistle. In his summary of the fifth chapter, he seems plainly to refer to this verse, when he says, ‘The Apostle here teaches, the unity of the Son with the Father’ [Du Pin, Art. “Athanasius,” London Edition, vol. 8, p. 34]. But it would be difficult to find any place in this chapter where this unity is taught, save in the seventh verse” (Jack, Remarks on the Authenticity of 1 John v. 7).

Priscillian (380 A.D.), who was beheaded in 385 by Emperor Maximus on the charge of heresy, quoted 1 John 5:7. “As John says ‘and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus’” (Liber Apologeticus).

Idacius Clarus (380 A.D.), Priscillian’s principal adversary and accuser, also cited 1 John 5:7 (Hills, p. 210).

Jerome (382 A.D.) -- Jerome not only believed that the Johannine Comma was Scripture but he testified that “irresponsible translators left out this testimony in the Greek codices” (Prologue to the Canonical Epistles; quoted from Strouse, A Critique of D.A. Carson’s “The King James Version Debate”). Jerome said further in his Prologue: “...these Epistles I have restored to their proper order; which, if arranged agreeably to the original text, and faithfully interpreted in Latin diction, would neither cause perplexity to the readers, nor would the various readings contradict themselves, especially in that place where we read the unity of the Trinity laid down in the Epistle of John. In this I found translators (or copyists) widely deviating from the truth; who set down in their own edition the names only of the three witnesses, that is, the Water, Blood, and Spirit; but omit the testimony of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; by which, above all places, the Divinity of the father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is proved to be one” (Prologue to the Canonical Epistles; quoted from Ben David, Three Letters Addressed to the Editor of The Quarterly Review, in which is Demonstrated the Genuineness of The Three Heavenly Witnesses--I John v. 7, London, 1825).

Theodorus (4th century) -- In “A treatise on one God in the Trinity, from the Epistle of John the Evangelist” he stated that John, in his Epistle, presents God as a Trinity (Ben David, “Three Letters Addressed to the Editor of The Quarterly Review, in which is Demonstrated the Genuineness of The Three Heavenly Witnesses--I John v. 7,” London, 1825). Ben David observes: “This is a remarkable testimony, as it implies the existence and notoriety of the verse about the middle of the fourth century.”

Gregory of Nazanzius (4th century) -- “What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water and the Blood? Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not consubstantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial. For who would assert that these are consubstantial? Secondly, because he had not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourself disclaim in the case of Deity?” (The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers). “Metzger claims that ‘the passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers.’ Such a bold assertion is also misleading because Gregory of Nazanzius (a Greek Church Father from the fourth century), although not directly quoting the passage, specifically alludes to the passage and objects to the grammatical structure if the Comma is omitted (Metzger, on the other hand, would have one to believe that the Greek Church Fathers knew nothing of the passage)” (Jesse Boyd, “And These Three Are One: A Case for the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7-8,” 1999, http://www.ovrlnd.com/Bible/casefor1john57.html).

Eucherius of Lyons (434 A.D.) -- “... in a tract, called Formulae Spiritualis Intelligentiae, c. 11, para. 3, 4. sets down both the seventh and eighth verses of the fifth chapter of St. John’s first epistle, in the same order as our printed editions have them, precluding thereby the common cavil, that the seventh verse is only a mystical explication of the eighth” (Twells, II, p. 135).

Vigilius Tapsensis (484 A.D.) -- “... twice in his books concerning the Trinity, printed among the Works of Athanasius (viz. Book first, and seventh) and also in his Tract against Varimadus the Arian, under the name of Idacius Clarus, cites 1 John 5:7” (Twells, II, p. 135). ..."

WithinReason · Mar 24, 2020

Angela53510 said:

1 John 5:7-8 (continued)

"... Victor Vitensis (484 A.D.) -- “... contemporary with Vigilius, writes the History of the Vandalic Persecution, in which he sets down a Confession of Faith, which Eugenius Bishop of Carthage, and the orthodox bishops of Africa, offered to King Hunnerick, a favourer of the Arians, who called upon those bishops to justify the catholic doctrine of the Trinity. In this Confession, presented Anno 484, among other places of Scripture, they defended the orthodox clause from 1 John 5:7, giving thereby the highest attestation, that they believed it to be genuine. Nor did the Arians, that we can find, object to it. So that the contending parties of those days seem to have agreed in reputing that passage authentic” (Twells, II, pp. 135, 136).

Eugenius at the Council of Carthage (485 A.D.) -- “...and in order that we may teach until now, more clearly than light, that the Holy Spirit is now one divinity with the Father and the Son. It is proved by the evangelist John, for he says, ‘there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one’” (Victor of Vitensis, Historia persecutionis Africanae, quoted from Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8, p. 43). We will see say more about the significance of this quotation.

Fulgentius Ruspensis (507 A.D.) -- “... another orthodox writer of the same country, cites the controverted words in three several places of his Works. Which further evinces, that the Arians about Hunneric, had not been able to disprove that text. For if they had, no writer for the Catholic side of the question, would have dared to use a baffled testimony, whilst the memory of that defeat was yet recent” (Twells, II, p. 136).

Cassiodorius (550 A.D.) -- “... a patrician of Rome, a person remarkable for zealously recommending the choice of ancient and correct copies of the Bible to the monks under his direction, for their constant use, copies purged from error by collation with the Greek text; and that, in doubtful places, they should consult two or three ancient and correct books. So affectionately concerned was he for the purity of the sacred text, that whilst he left the correcting of other books to his Notaries, he would trust no hand but his own in reforming the Bible. Further, he himself declares, that he wrote his Treatise of Orthography, purposely to promote the faithful transcribing of the Scripture. It must therefore be of considerable importance, in the present dispute, to know that the reading of his copy, 1 John 5:7. And of all his Tracts, none was so likely to satisfy our curiosity as that entitled Complexiones, which were short and running notes, on the apostolical epistles and Acts, and the Revelation. ... But Cassiodorius’s Complexiones were given up for lost, among other treasures of ancient literature, when, soon after the learned and judicious Mr. Martin had ended his labours upon this subject, that piece was unexpectedly found in the Library of Verona, and published at Florence by Scipio Maffeius [Francesco Scipione Maffei (1675-1755)], An. 1721. And from thence we have all the satisfaction we can desire, that the contested passage was in Cassiodorius’s copy. For in his comment on 1 John 5:1 and following verses, he concludes with these words: Testificantur in Terra tria Mysteria, Aqua, Sanguis, & Spiritus: quae in Passione Domini leguntur completa: in Caelo autem Pater, & Filius, & Spiritus Sanctus, & hi tres unus est Deus. [The three mysteries testify (bear witness) on earth, the water, blood and the spirit, which are read in full in the passion of (our) Lord: likewise, in heaven, the Father, and Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these three, one is God.] After which he proceeds to cite and explain the ninth verse of that chapter” (Twells, II, pp. 136, 137).

Maximus, a Greek writer (645 A.D.), author of the Disputes in the Council of Nice (among the works of Athanasius) cites therein 1 John 5:7 (Twells, II, p. 129).

Isiodore Mercator (785 A.D.) “is supposed to have forged the Decretal Epistles published by him. In the first of Pope Hyginus, 1 John 5:7,8 are cited, though the present order of them is inverted, as it was probably in Cassiodorius’s copy also. The spurious character of these epistles no way hurts their authority, for the contested text being in the copies of those times” (Twells, II, p. 137).

Ambrosius Authpertus (8th century), “of the same age, wrote a commentary upon the Revelations yet extant, in which the words of 1 John 5:7 are brought in as explicatory of Revelation 1:5” (Twells, II, p. 138).

In the Glossa Ordinaria of Walafrid Strabo (9th century), “a work universally approved, we see the passages of the three Witnesses in Heaven, both in the text and the commentary” (Twells, II, p. 138).

“Lastly, we find no one Latin writer complaining of this passage (which appears to have been extant in many copies from the fifth century inclusive) as an interpolation, which is a very good negative evidence, that no just objection could be made to its genuineness. The Preface of Jerome blames some translators for omitting it, but till the days of Erasmus, the insertion of it was never deemed a fault” (Twells, II, p. 138). ..."

WithinReason · Mar 24, 2020

Angela53510 said:

1 John 5:7-8 (continued)

"... THE ARGUMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE. As we have seen, Eugenius, spokesman for the African bishops at the Council of Carthage (485 A.D.), quoted 1 John 5:7 in defense of the deity of Jesus Christ against the Arians. The bishops, numbering three to four hundred, were from Mauritania, Sardinia, Corsica, and the Balearick Isles, and they stood in defense of the Trinity. They “pawned their lives as well as reputation, for the verity of that disputed passage” (Twells, II, p. 147). Eugenius said: “...and in order that we may teach until now, more clearly than light, that the Holy Spirit is now one divinity with the Father and the Son. It is proved by the evangelist John, for he says, ‘there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one’” In spite of claims to the contrary by those who oppose the Johannine Comma, the fact that 1 John 5:7 was quoted at the fifth century Council of Carthage is a nearly irrefutable argument in favor of its apostolic authenticity. “Charles Butler, in Horae Biblicae [Part II, A Short Historical Outline of the Disputes Respecting the Authenticity of the Verse of the Three Heavenly Witnesses of 1 John, 1807], offered an interesting 12-point rebuttal to the opposers of the Comma. Such is a lengthy treatise and will not be employed word for word but adequately summarized. Butler pointed out that the Catholic Bishops were summoned to a conference where they most certainly expected the tenets of their faith to be attacked by the Arians (the Arians denied the deity of Jesus Christ). Therefore, they would have been very careful about what they included in their proposed confession, seeing as all power was in the hands of their angry Arian adversaries. The bishops included the Johannine Comma as a first line of defense for their confession of Christ’s deity. If the Arians could have argued what present-day opposers of the verse say (the Comma was is no Greek copy and in only a few Lain copies), what would the bishops have replied? If we are to believe that they were unable to hold out one Greek copy, no ancient Latin copy, and no ancient father where the verse could be found, THE ARIANS COULD HAVE RIGHTLY ACCUSED THEM ON THE SPOT OF FOLLOWING A SPURIOUS PASSAGE AND BEING GUILTY OF PALPABLE FALSEHOOD. It is almost certain that these bishops would not have exposed themselves to such immediate and indelible infamy. They volunteered to include the Comma in their confession despite the existence of many long treatises that had been written by the ancient defenders of the Trinity in which the verse had not been mentioned. Such treatises would have served as ample evidence, but the bishops cited 1 John 5:7-8 instead. Obviously, they had no fear that any claim of spuriousness could be legitimately dashed upon them. If the verse were attacked, the bishops could have produced Greek copies, ancient Latin copies, and ancient fathers in its defense. The Comma, however, was not attacked by the Arians and the Catholic bishops (302 of them) were exiled to different parts of Africa, exposed to the insults of their enemies, and carefully deprived of all temporal and spiritual comforts of life. It is ludicrous to think that these men could undergo such persecution and suffering for their belief of the deity of Jesus Christ only to insert a spurious verse into God’s Word as their first line of defense. THE AFRICAN BISHOPS MUST HAVE HAD WEIGHTY TESTIMONY TO THE COMMA IN THEIR MANUSCRIPTS. AS A RESULT, THEY WERE ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY EMPLOY THE PASSAGE AS THEY DEFENDED THEIR FAITH BEFORE THE ARIAN ACCUSERS” (Jesse Boyd, And These Three Are One: A Case for the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7-8 Rooted in Biblical Exegesis, 1999). ..."

WithinReason · Mar 24, 2020

Angela53510 said:

1 John 5:7-8 (continued)

"... THE ARGUMENT FROM THE ASSEMBLY GATHERED BY CHARLEMAGNE. “About the close of the eighth century, the Emperor Charlemagne assembled all the learned men that were to be found in that age, and placed Alciunus, an Englishman of great erudition, at their head; instructing them to revise the manuscripts of the Bible then in use, to settle the text, and to rectify the errors which had crept into it, through the haste or the ignorance of transcribers. To affect this great purpose, he furnished them with every manuscript that could be procured throughout his very extensive dominions. IN THEIR CORRECTORIUM, THE RESULT OF THEIR UNITED LABOURS, WHICH WAS PRESENTED IN PUBLIC TO THE EMPEROR, BY ALCIUNUS, THE TESTIMONY OF THE THREE (HEAVENLY) WITNESSES IS READ WITHOUT THE SMALLEST IMPEACHMENT OF ITS AUTHENTICITY. This very volume Baronius affirms to have been extant at Rome in his lifetime,* in the library of the Abbey of Vaux-Celles; and he styles is ‘a treasure of inestimable value.’ [* He was born in or about A.D. 1538, and died in A.D. 1607. Du Pin confirms this account of Baronius, v. vi. p. 122. Travis p. 24.] It cannot be supposed, that these divines, assembled under the auspices of a prince zealous for the restoration of learning, would attempt to settle the text of the New Testament, without referring to the Greek original; especially since we know, that there were, at that time, persons eminently skilled in the Greek language. THEY MUST HAVE HAD ACCESS TO PERUSE MANUSCRIPTS WHICH HAVE LONG SINCE PERISHED; AND THEIR RESEARCHES MIGHT IN ALL PROBABILITY EXTEND EVEN TO THE AGE OF THE APOSTLES. Here, then, is evidence, that this verse has been acknowledged as a part of Scripture, during more than a thousand years” (Robert Jack, Remarks on the Authenticity of 1 John v. 7). ..."

Exposing!! The Corrupt Counterfeit (NIV) Bible, Verses That Have Been Tamped With!!

Active member

Active member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member